Americana: Michael Horton on ‘the politics of enthusiasm’

Every now and again, I feature one of my favourite Calvinists, Dr Michael Horton, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary California, author of numerous books, host at White Horse Inn (WHI) and Editor-in-Chief of Modern Reformation magazine.

In ‘The politics of enthusiasm’ (White Horse Inn blog) Horton recently examined the Christian beliefs of some of the more high-profile candidates in the 2012 presidential race. He has also given us a bit of American religious history behind these beliefs. Emphases below are mine:

Just as the Iowa straw-poll concluded last Saturday, with Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul taking first and second place, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his candidacy. Happily, the kingdom of Christ is neither threatened nor furthered by the kingdoms of this age. Nevertheless, the way in which not only the media but professing Christians distort Christianity in public should be of serious concern to all Christians—including those who support the political agenda of offending candidates.

The media has had a feeding frenzy over Gov. Perry’s prominent role in a Houston prayer service. Secularists will be unhappy with any political leader who exhibits strong religious convictions in public. The furor over Michele Bachmann’s former membership in the Lutheran Church-Wisconsin Synod, which is confessionally bound to the view that the papacy is “antichrist,” points up the incomprehensibility of traditional churches (Catholic or Protestant) to many journalists. The press hostility churned the already murky waters of religious and historical ignorance into a whirlpool of secularist bigotry. No one in the press corps apparently Googled the fact that the confessions of 10 Presbyterian and 2 Dutch Reformed U. S. presidents said the same thing.

At the same time, why is it that so many public figures belong to strange churches or identify with extreme movements and leaders? President Obama’s now estranged pastor, Jeremiah Wright, traced God’s hand in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack to American sins against non-white and disadvantaged peoples. “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he preached. Of course, it’s wacky, but the only difference from a lot of right-wing sermonizing is the choice of targets (and reasons) for divine retribution …

Please note that ‘enthusiasm’ has a different — and negative — theological meaning from what we think of when we hear the term. Enthusiasm has a long and sometimes violent history:

However much the press will get it wrong—and oddly declare the free exercise of religion somehow unconstitutional—U.S. politics seems more dominated than ever by what the Protestant Reformers called “enthusiasm.”Meaning literally, “God-within-ism,” Luther and Calvin had in mind the radical Anabaptists who thought they were new apostles.Hearing God’s voice directly within, they did not need an external Word (the Scriptures) or the external ministry of preaching, sacrament, and discipline. Some of the early radicals even sought to take over civil government. In the city of Mühlhausen, Thomas Müntzer succeeded, albeit briefly, until his violent, polygamous, and communist theocracy (“The Eternal League of God”) was defeated. Like Müntzer, many political radicals since have appealed to the twelfth-century mystic Joachim of Fiore and his prophecy of a coming “Age of the Spirit” that will replace all external government and churches. Everyone will know God by direct revelation and there will be no need for the law or the gospel, the state or the church.

This is a dangerous, not to mention unbiblical, outlook to adopt — despite the fact that it has gained much currency in the United States since the age of revivalism with Charles Finney in the 19th century. Like Charles Taze Russell, who founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Finney was another Presbyterian who went off the rails because he could not bring himself to accept confessional — and scriptural — tenets of the faith. Two of Finney’s better legacies were his strong abolitionist stance and belief in education for all, regardless of sex or colour. But I digress.

Horton continues:

The religious left and the religious right have roots in the Second Great Awakening, which in many ways carries on this radical Protestant impulse. And while Charles Finney’s broad agenda of public justice and personal morality has split into two divergent streams (indeed, political parties), they are twin offspring of revivalistic Protestant enthusiasm.

Mormonism is a quintessential offspring of the millennarian, restorationist, and heretical impulse of radical Protestant sects in nineteenth-century America. Although Mitt Romney professes deep commitment to his Mormon beliefs, he has shown no sign of taking his cues from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in Salt Lake City …

That’s ironic, because the other Republican front-runners not only believe that the extraordinary office of apostle is still in effect (as Mormonism teaches), but apparently share the hope of their closest religious advisors that they will be emissaries of the Spirit to bring a decadent nation back to God—through the political process.

This American-style 19th century enthusiasm has taken some strange turns since the days of the Religious Right from the 1970s, as we shall see:

First, Michele Bachmann. Though she used to belong to a conservative Lutheran church, Bachmann’s faith seems to have been shaped more by the Pentecostal-theonomist synthesis of “dominion theology.” (See Ryan Lizza, “Leap of Faith: The Making of a Republican Front-Runner,” The New Yorker, Aug 15 2011, p. 54-63). She has spoken openly of having had a vision of the person she was to marry, while he was having the same vision of her. Influenced initially by Francis Schaeffer’s “A Christian Manifesto,” she eventually enrolled in the Oral Roberts University Law School and then moved to Virginia Beach, where her husband took a degree in counseling at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. Serving on the school board of a charter school led by Christian activist Dennis L. Meyer, she says she admired his philosophy of governance: “Denny encouraged the board to do things and move forward not because we ‘think’ it should be done a certain way, but because God wants us to” …

Horton tells us that Bachmann served on the board of Summit Ministries in Colorado. He adds that Summit’s founder David A Noebel was a member of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society. Bachmann’s time at Summit encouraged her to enter politics with this same philosophy.

Why would someone desert Lutheranism for evangelicalism? Wouldn’t she have wanted to remain a member of the original Reformation church with a sound doctrine?

Then, there’s Texas Governor Rick Perry. Horton writes:

Second, Rick Perry. First, a little background—sorry in advance for the autobiography. I edited two books in the 1990s—The Agony of Deceit (1990) and Power Religion (1997). The first one investigated the theology of then-prominent prosperity evangelists … my goal was to search beneath the televangelism scandals in the news to examine the heart of prosperity theology itself. After a TIME magazine story on the book and its charges, a firestorm of controversy ensued—including letters from the lawyers of some prominent televangelists.

The theology that undergirded many of the televangelists’ ministries was shared by other men and movements like C. Peter Wagner, the Vineyard movement, the “Toronto Blessing,” and the “Kansas City Prophets.” Together they were the self-styled “Next Wave,” a Third Great Awakening. Behind this movement lay the “Latter Rain” (a.k.a. “Shepherding”) movement of the 1970s: a bizarre aberration all its own that continues in the New Apostolic Reformation movement I mention below.

And what you will read below explains why I am leery of evangelicals on a national stage. We can never be sure what ‘brand’ of evangelicalism they believe. Back to Horton:

Through many of these leaders, the radical fringes of Pentecostalism found their way into more mainstream evangelicalism.

More radically, many “Third Wave” Pentecostals linked up with R. J. Rushdoony’s “Christian Reconstructionism,” radical defenders of the antebellum South, and other assorted enthusiasts. Popular versions of dispensational premillennialism (waiting for the Rapture while the world gets steadily worse) gave way to an extreme—and highly politicized—postmillennialism (preparing the way for a golden age of Christian dominion before Christ returns).

And this really is as strange as you might imagine it to be. What Horton refers to as ‘radical defenders of the antebellum South’ includes a belief in kinism, which is staying within your own racial group and adopting the superiority which accompanies it. I have read of families who will move cross-country to be part of one of these churches, believing that the pastor and that church will somehow save them from not only spiritual but social ills.

But, let’s go back to C Peter Wagner, founder of the church growth movement, and his New Apostolic Reformation. (Why Horton refers to it as ‘NAP’ instead of the usual ‘NAR’ is unclear.)

C. Peter Wagner, Fuller Seminary professor and pioneer of the church growth movement, was the theologian of the Vineyard movement. He also launched the phenomenon of “spiritual mapping,” where various cities or regions were identified with specific demons to be bound by international prayer warriors. I met with some of these leaders years ago and I don’t question their sincerity, but I do question their orthodoxy. Until recently, I had assumed that the whole thing was just another revivalistic movement that had come and gone like an Arizona monsoon. Not so, evidently. Enthusiasm never goes away, it just keeps reinventing itself.

And this is why I hope that Sarah Palin will work behind the scenes instead of upfront, as she, too, has an indirect connection with prayer warriors, dating from the 2008 campaign when she ran as vice president on John McCain’s ticket.

This year, however, Horton points us to Rick Perry’s purported links with this group:

According to Wagner and the NA[R] circle, the office of prophet and apostle, moribund for centuries, was restored in 2001—with Wagner and his associates as the chief candidates. While most Pentecostals have been somewhat a-political and the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination) has consistently repudiated the succession of movements leading to the NA[R], this group is radically postmillennial and politically engaged. Its “Latter Rain” roots are on many points theologically heterodox, its discipline verges on cultic, and now it seems that it wants political power. The “New Reformation” such groups envisage is more like the radical Anabaptist theocracy of Thomas Müntzer that Luther thundered against in “Against the Fanatics” and Calvin excoriated in “Against the Anabaptists.”

We can be sure that if Luther and Calvin took a theological stance against a belief that it was for just cause — being unbiblical and doctrinally unsound. The question is — do these politicians understand what they are getting into? I am not convinced that they know why these movements are theologically objectionable. We shall see as the 2012 campaign progresses.

Reportedly, Governor Perry has close ties with the New Apostolic Reformation group. Rather than rehearse the reports, you can read and evaluate them for yourself, especially the Texas Observerstory and the recent Rachel Maddow report. I’m not suggesting that we should uncritically accept the claims of journalistic neutrality from either source, but this movement—and similar yet less defined sub-groups—will no doubt bring greater disgrace to the cause of Christ in the minds of a biblically illiterate society. You’ll hear more about it in coming months. Regardless of how one judges the merits of the candidates’ political positions, the close identification of evangelical Christianity with radical enthusiasm (a direct, unmediated, extraordinary work of the Spirit in charismatic individuals) will only become more justifiable in the minds of many of our neighbors. Its politicization will only make it more difficult to have serious conversations with our friends and co-workers not only about the common good of civil society but the gospel.

The last thing we need is for a Republican candidate to identify with Christian fringe movements. It also makes it difficult for us to evangelise in our daily lives when this is the only Christianity the public hears about from the mainstream media — and, believe me, it will be.

The Gospel is apolitical. Jesus said: ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:36).

Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was, is — and ever will be — sufficient atonement for our sins.

God does not need our help in accomplishing His divine purpose for the world.

Whatever temporal and imperfect transformation we can effect now comes from a godly and moral life as individuals, not as organised theocratic groups or movements.

You point to the dangers effectively Churchmouse. It is difficult for a Christian who prays for God’s will to be done ‘in earth as in heaven’ to point to the dangers of ‘religious’ secular politics, if I’ve understood you aright. But theocracy does equal tyranny. Perhaps one might extend that statement to the ‘religion’ of atheist politics. A further point, as an Englishman – it seems to be different in the US – I find the references to Calvinism in your blog and others difficult to understand. To my ill-educated mind Calvinism represents gloom, puritanism and the belief that some people are beyond hope of salvation whether they repent or not. I’d be happy to be disabused of that assumption. As usual, if this is rot, please spike.

Thanks, Llew — I’m glad you enjoyed the post! The theocratic aspect of this puts me off and, if it turns out to be true (as the MSM could be blowing this out of proportion), it will be difficult to offset. There were dry counties when I lived down South for a year as a child; pietism (no drinks, smokes, etc.) will not save people’s souls. And this is likely to be the thing we might get with some of these people; I don’t know. It’s bad enough with Obama’s eugenicist secular pietists (e.g. the obese Health Secretary railing against tobacco, fatty food, etc. — give over).

Give me Ron Paul any day — note the difference between his religious outlook (‘normal’ to me) as featured in my Friday post compared with Bachmann and Perry’s. Again, I’m going to reserve further judgment until I read more. In 2008, John McCain had to distance himself from a Pastor Parsley (his real name) early on in the campaign. It was quickly forgotten.

Onto Calvinism — yes, until I started reading about it three years ago, I, too, thought it a terrible thing. First, why it appeals to me: these guys really bring the Bible alive. Second, they take a highly intellectual approach to faith (reading some of their blogs and articles must be worth a year at seminary!). Third, many of them have libertarian ideas and it is not unknown for them to relax with a drink and a cigar. The 19th century Baptist who founded London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, Charles Spurgeon, enjoyed port and cigars. John Gresham Machen (Liberalism and Christianity) took a number of libertarian stances, e.g. he opposed Prohibition.

Over the past few weeks, there has been criticism by Michael Horton and others on the White Horse Inn broadcasts about the stance that John MacArthur takes on drink, which he again made public. Although he has described himself as a Calvinist, MacArthur comes from a slightly different background, however, in that he studied at pietistic evangelical Bible colleges rather than at seminaries such as Westminster Seminary California and Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. That said, he knows his Scripture, although I disagree with his outlook on the end of the world.

Yes, the Calvinist tradition we know in the UK stems from John Knox, a student of John Calvin’s. I ran across something a few years ago — on a Calvinist site — that said Calvin actually told Knox to tone it down with regard to his zeal with non-Presbyterians. Sadly, Knox ignored his teacher’s advice. Knox in many ways displayed a misplaced love of God. As we know (am mentioning this for other readers’ benefit), this zeal spilled over into Cromwell and the Roundheads. A terrible period in English history. However, other English Puritans — notably, clergy — did not feel the same way and were supporters of the monarchy. Strangely, I read little about John Knox in Calvinist media today. But, yes, you are probably thinking of today’s Wee Frees and the Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland (and the Revds Paisley). But most Calvinists around the world are not Wee Frees and the Presbyterian Church, especially in the United States, is much broader than we often think.

What also concerns me are some of the Reformed Anglicans in the US, many of whom adopt what seem to be Knox-like stances. A number of them have come into the Anglican Communion from other denominations (Assembly of God). Some of these converts are also anti-Catholic and anti-Anglo Catholic. They would like to make the Anglican Church into a Presbyterian one, just using the BCP. Sorry, but I cannot get my head around that. Why not just become a Presbyterian? I have found the Westminster Confessions of Faith helpful in explaining the finer points of Christianity, and I’ll probably quote some of them in future. Yes, it is true that some Anglican clergy were active in helping devise these Confessions, but the Anglican Church, as we know, never adopted them for her own use. However, one could also say that in terms of belief as stated in the 39 Articles, the Anglican Church does profess / confess the same beliefs as Calvinists do; we just don’t have the same traditions and ecclesiastical structure (our dioceses, bishops and vicars v their presbyteries, pastors and elders system).

For my money, I have learned loads from Calvinists about Scripture, the Church and theology. They are highly intelligent men, and I am grateful for their writing and for sharing it so generously with Christians on the Internet. I would heartily recommend them to anyone wishing to know more about Christianity and the Christian life.

Sorry for the length, Llew — if you’ve read this far, many thanks! I hope this explains my position. Feel free to come back with questions, if you like!

I certainly did read that far, Churchmouse, and I thank you for your detailed comments. I have just written a detailed reply and lost it. Forgive the brevity of this but it boils down to the fact that I respond very much to the warmth of your appreciation of the Calvinists’ Bibilical teaching and worship. My problem is simply the belief that some people are pre-ordained not to be saved. You must be familiar with that argument. I’m not attacking the theory, rather the opposite. It puts me off. I did not know that there had been a theocratic Calvinist administration in Switzerland in Calvin’s time by the way and have no idea who it compared with other regimes. Forgive my ignorance but the current relevance of religious allegiances in the US is beyond my grasp, so I can’t comment there. Regards

Thank you, Llew, for reading all the way through — much appreciated! :)

There are a number of Bible verses — including ones in the New Testament (Jesus’s words) — where He refers to ‘all those whom the Father gives/sends to Me’. Probably a subject for another post, and a very good one, too — thanks for indirectly suggesting it! That also was difficult for me to grasp until Calvinists showed the references. Tied in with that is that Jesus’s sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient for all, but not efficacious for all, again, those ‘whom the Father gave’. St Paul also says that no one can seek Christ. So, basically, people whom God has called then start to seek Christ but no one just does so of his own free will.

But, let’s face it, many people today actively reject Christ. Some do come to Him, eventually, but not all. Some are blinded by sin and ignorance — we hope temporarily — and that is why we need to continue to evangelise in the simplest of ways (e.g. good example and obedience to the Commandments, even when all around us are morally derelict. We can also pray that they turn from sin. We do not know who these people are. St Augustine of Hippo is a great example of someone who turned from a life of sin to one of holiness. He began by reading Latin classics on leading a better, well-ordered life. The next thing, he dedicated his life to God. So, he came to salvation in a roundabout way (I got stick for saying this a year ago, but it is true — he was devoted to carnal pleasures in his youth). Calvin, incidentally, was greatly influenced by St Augustine.

Theocratic regimes were not unknown in Calvin’s time and a number of duchies around Europe maintained civil order in cities through religious means. A number of people think that Calvin’s Geneva was unique, but it was the norm. Another misconception is that he ruled Geneva. He actually fell afoul of their city council over Holy Communion. He had to return to France before they called him back some years later. Oh, I almost forgot another myth: every now and then someone online (one commented here a couple of years ago) says, ‘Calvin drowned a man.’ That was Zwingli and the city council in Zurich. They sentenced Felix Manz — a radical Anabaptist — to death for not accepting child baptism (paedobaptism) and aspects of Sunday liturgy among other things. The Wikipedia link explains more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Manz.

Many thanks for your detailed reply Churchmouse. Without, I hope, being smug or lazy about it, for the time being I’ll rest my thoughts on the first epistle of John, 4.7: ‘for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God’.

But what about those who don’t love? ‘Love is of God’ — think of those who commit horrific crimes: do they love? A number of verses point to God’s condemnation of those who hate Him and His people, yea, even in the New Testament.

This is where today’s Anglican churches miss the point. We get the positives without the negatives — and no Scripture required. Whilst I take your point, Llew, we are advised to study the Bible as a whole and avoid picking and choosing! ;)

In closing, words from Christ also found in John’s Gospel:

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:18-21)

Apologies for the delay in replying and, maybe, for prolonging this thread. I completely take your point as illustrated above, Churchmouse. What I find difficult to accept is the theory, according to ‘predestination’, that some people are created without the capability or potential to believe. Should you reply to this comment I promise I’ll willingly withdraw from the discussion at that point

III. Let me show, in the third place, what the Bible says about the number of the saved.

There is only one standard of truth and error to which we ought to appeal. That standard is the Holy Scripture. Whatsoever is there written we must receive and believe: whatsoever cannot be proved by Scripture we ought to refuse.

Can any reader of this paper subscribe to this? If he cannot, there is little chance of his being moved by any words of mine. If he can, let him give me his attention for a few moments, and I will tell him some solemn things.

Let us look, then, for one thing, at one single text of Scripture, and examine it well. We shall find it in Matthew vii. 13, 14: — “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Now these are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are the words of Him who was very God, and whose words shall never pass away. They are the words of Him who knew what was in man, — who knew things to come, and things past, — who knew that He should judge all men at the last day. And what do those words mean? Are they words which no man can understand without a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek? No: they are not! Are they a dark, unfulfilled prophecy, like the visions in Revelation, or the description of Ezekiel’s temple? No: they are not! Are they a deep mysterious saying, which no human intellect can fathom? No: they are not! The words are clear, plain, and unmistakable. Ask any labouring man who can road, and he will tell you so. There is only one meaning which can be attached to them. Their meaning is, that many people will be lost, and few will be found saved.

Let us look, in the next place, at the whole history of mankind as respects religion, as we have it given in the Bible. Let us go through the whole four thousand years, over which the history of the Bible reaches. Let us find, if we can, one single period of time at which godly people were many,, and ungodly people were few.

How was it in the days of Noah? The earth we are told expressly was “filled with violence.” The imagination of man’s heart was only “evil continually.” (Gen. vi. 5,12.) “All flesh had corrupted his way.” The loss of paradise was forgotten. The warnings of God, by Noah’s mouth, were despised …

How was it in the days of Abraham, and Isaac, and Lot? It is evident that in the matter of religion they stood very much alone. The family from which they were taken was a family of idolaters. The nations among whom they lived were sunk in gross darkness and sin. When Sodom and Gomorrah were burned there were not five righteous people to be found in the four cities of the plain …

How was it with Israel in the days of the Judges? No one can read the book of Judges, and not be struck with the sad examples of man’s corruption which it affords. Time after time we are told of the people forsaking God, and following idols …

How was it with Israel in the days of the Kings? From Saul, the first king, down to Zedekiah, the last king, their history is a melancholy account of backsliding, and declension, and idolatry, — with a few bright exceptional periods …

How was it with the Jews when our Lord Jesus Christ was on earth? The words of Saint John are the best account of their spiritual state: “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” (John i. 11.) …

How was it with the world in the days of the Apostles? If ever there was a period when true religion flourished it was then. Never did the Holy Ghost call into the fold of Christ so many souls in the same space of time. Never were there so many conversions under the preaching of the Gospel as when Paul and his fellow-labourers were the preachers. But still, it is plain from the Acts of the Apostles, that true Christianity was “everywhere spoken against.” (Acts xxviii. 22.) It is evident that in every city, even in Jerusalem itself, true Christians were a small minority …

IV. Let me show, in the last place, some plain facts about the number of the saved.

I ask particular attention to this part of the subject.

I know well that people flatter themselves that the world is far better and wiser than it was 1800 years ago …

I am thoroughly satisfied that the importance of this question is painfully overlooked. I am persuaded that the views of most people about the quantity of unbelief and sin in the world, are utterly inadequate and incorrect. I am convinced that very few people, whether ministers or private Christians, at all realize how few there are in a way to be saved. I want to draw attention to the subject, and I will therefore bring forward a few plain facts about it …

It is a painful conclusion to arrive at, but I know not how it can be avoided. It is a fearful and tremendous thought, that there should be so many churchmen in England, and so many dissenters, so many seat-holders, and so many pew-renters, so many hearers, and so many communicants, — and yet, after all, so few in a way to be saved! But the only question is, Is it not true? — It is vain to shut our eyes against facts. It is useless to pretend not to see what is going on around us. The statements of the Bible and the facts of the world we live in will lead us to the same conclusion: Many are being lost, and, few being saved! …

Now moving towards today, here is a Reformed man, in seminary, who offers a further explanation:

I can go to many places in Scripture to defend the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, but in my mind the most comprehensive passage is Romans 8:28-39. The salient verses are vv. 29-30, which read, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” There is a chain presented in this passage. The first link in that chain is God’s foreknowledge of believers (the “those” in v. 29 link back to “those that love God” in v. 28). God’s foreknowledge refers to his having set his redeeming, saving love on believers in eternity past. These people God foreknew he also predestines unto salvation. Those who God predestines he also calls (unto repentance and faith), justifies (imputes the righteousness of Christ) and glorifies (raises us on the last day). From each stage to the next, believers are carried along by God and none are lost along the way. Furthermore, these verbs (foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorified) are in the past tense (technically they are in the Greek aorist tense, which is rendered in English as past tense), which speaks of these things as completed actions on God’s part.

If we look at vv. 31-39, we see that the thrust of Paul’s argument is that there is nothing that can separate us from God’s everlasting love (vv. 38-39). When Paul says ‘nothing,’ he means nothing! Not even our sin can ultimately separate us from God’s love for as Paul says in vv. 33-34, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” God justifies us and Christ intercedes on our behalf. Our sin has been paid and can no more separate from God’s love than can death, famine, nakedness or sword …

Every NT reference to the “book of life” either talks about people found in the book of life, people not found in the book of life or people who will never be blotted out of the book of life. Psalm 69 is an imprecatory psalm in which David prays for God to curse his enemies, and part of that curse is for God to “blot them out of the book of life.” Given the nature of this psalm and of poetry altogether, I don’t think we need to alter our theology based on this one verse.

Llew, I would also suggest rereading Romans. Here is a passage from Romans 8:

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This chain of foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification cannot be broken. Each of these are done by the Lord. Some interpreters have tried to get around unconditional election here by saying that foreknowledge merely refers to foreseen faith such that God merely knows who will believe but he does not choose them. Such an answer does not make sense of the chain which includes predestination which literally means “predetermination.” Further God’s foreknowledge refers to more than only his foreseeing things. When the Bible speaks of those whom the Father knows it refers to those upon whom God has set his covenant affection. It refers to those whom God loves and has begun a relationship with.

Finally, I offer excerpts from the 39 Articles of Religion — from our Anglican Communion:

IX. Of Original or Birth Sin.
ORIGINAL sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption
of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from
original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and
therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth
remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some
do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of
God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that
concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

X. Of Free Will.
THE condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength
and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable
to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we
have that good will.

XI. Of the Justification of Man.
WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our
own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of
comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
PREDESTINATION to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He
hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen
in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they
which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by His Spirit working in due
season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be
made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God’s
mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable
comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of
the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth
greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently
kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before
their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either
into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our
doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.
XVIII. Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ.
THEY also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he
professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth
set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Am happy to discuss further, but that would seem enough to digest, as it were, at the moment.

Many thanks indeed for your detailed reply and references Churchmouse. I think maybe we’ll just have to take separate viewpoints here. I do accept, though with sadness, that those who, in full understanding of what they are doing, reject Christ, cannot receive His salvation. What I don’t understand and cannot accept is that some people are foredoomed, or programmed maybe, to reject Him. If that is the case they have no choice. If they have no choice, where is their condemnation? I am sure I betray naivete in saying that…. However, I’m most grateful for your close attention to the points I’ve raised. Best wishes.

Who can know how the Lord thinks? Think of it this way: we were all born sinners, so why should any of us be saved at all? We can do nothing to merit salvation.

Just wondering, though, how closely many of today’s Anglicans have read the39 Articles of Religion. It seems that if our vicars preached about them, we’d all have a better understanding of what the Anglican faith is. Ours is not a ‘free will’ church (unlike the Methodists, General Baptists, Wesleyan evangelicals, etc.).